791 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 518 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort
-
The court held that the plaintiff's claims, primarily concerning wrongful discharge and challenging an arbitrator's award based on a private settlement agreement, did not sufficiently allege a violation of the collective bargaining agreement to establish federal jurisdiction unde
-
Dismissal with prejudice under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) was proper because the cross-claim failed to allege sufficient facts demonstrating the bank's knowledge and participation in the alleged fraud.
-
668 F.2d 454·
10th Cir.·
1981-12-18
·cited 6×
The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the United States as a defendant because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the discretionary nature of the government's actions and the operational negligence of its employees.
-
328 F.2d 122·
7th Cir.·
1964-02-10
·cited 6×
The court held that an advertisement published by Union Pacific, detailing the benefits of its proposed merger with Rock Island and the drawbacks of a competing offer, was not an unlawful proxy solicitation under Section 14 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 because its p
-
270 F.2d 36·
9th Cir.·
1959-08-26
·cited 6×
The court held that the appeal was frivolous because the issue of judicial immunity is well-established, and thus denied the motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
-
141 F.2d 679·
10th Cir.·
1944-03-21
·cited 6×
The court held that the complaint, when viewed favorably, sufficiently stated a claim for breach of contract, particularly regarding pre-assignment failures.
-
798 F. Supp. 2d 1303·
S.D. Fla.·
2011-07-08
·cited 5×
The court held that the defendant's operation of a website facilitating user uploads and downloads of copyrighted material does not constitute direct copyright infringement, but the claims for secondary copyright infringement (inducement, contributory, and vicarious) are sufficie
-
651 F. Supp. 2d 1328·
S.D. Fla.·
2009-07-27
·cited 5×
The court granted motions to dismiss, finding that sovereign immunity barred federal and state claims against state defendants, and that federal defendants were not properly served and failed to provide required notice for certain claims.
-
555 F. Supp. 2d 1331·
S.D. Fla.·
2008-05-15
·cited 5×
The court held that the complaint sufficiently stated claims to withstand a motion to dismiss, denying the defendants' motion.
-
534 F. Supp. 2d 1326·
S.D. Fla.·
2008-02-05
·cited 5×
The court held that the plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to establish the defendant bank's participation in the operation or management of the alleged RICO enterprise, thus dismissing the RICO claims.
-
236 F. Supp. 2d 1303·
N.D. Fla.·
2002-09-30
·cited 5×
The court held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for intentional or negligent spoliation of evidence because they did not allege facts demonstrating an intent to disrupt litigation or a duty to preserve evidence.
-
The court held that the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to plead fraud with particularity and for failure to state a claim was without merit, denying the motion.
-
920 F. Supp. 1260·
S.D. Fla.·
1995-11-17
·cited 5×
The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting the motion for class certification and denying the motion to dismiss.
-
A criminal alien does not have standing to compel the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to commence deportation proceedings under the Mandamus Act or the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because they do not fall within the 'zone of interest' of the relevant statute.
-
The court held that a motion to strike an amended complaint filed during a pending motion to dismiss is permissible, but the amended complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim under the economic loss rule and lack of privity for the warranty claim.
-
The court held that a bank account is not a RICO enterprise and that the plaintiff's investment scheme did not involve securities. It affirmed dismissal of most state law claims but reversed dismissal of some negligence claims, remanding them without prejudice.
-
The court held that personal jurisdiction was proper over the defendant driver under Florida's long-arm statute and due process, and that claims for negligent supervision, entrustment, and beneficial ownership were sufficiently pleaded, but claims for imputed parental liability u
-
The court held that the dismissal of the union claim with prejudice was improper, and modified the judgment to allow the plaintiff to file an amended complaint against both defendants.
-
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the City's nuisance and abnormally dangerous activity claims for failure to assert Monsanto's "authority or actual physical control to direct the use or disposal of its product past the point of sale."
-
The court held that a single scheme can satisfy RICO's pattern requirement, but affirmed dismissal for defendants who did not allege sufficient predicate acts or failed to plead fraud with particularity.
-
The court held that a pro se plaintiff's complaint, when construed liberally and considered in its entirety, stated claims against the City for racial discrimination under Title VII and Section 1981, but not against individual defendants.
-
724 F.2d 143·
D.C. Cir.·
1983-12-22
·cited 5×
The court held that while the case is not a nonjusticiable political question, injunctive and declaratory relief are inappropriate due to foreign affairs concerns and the availability of monetary relief under the Tucker Act.
-
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, holding that Officer Alexander's use of deadly force was objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the mall defendants owed no duty to the decedent under Alabama law.
-
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28904·
M.D. Fla.·
2014-03-06
·cited 4×
The court held that the Fourth Amended Complaint did not constitute a shotgun pleading and that plaintiffs had plausibly stated claims for strict liability (design defect and failure to warn), breach of express warranty, and negligence, but dismissed the negligence claim to the e
-
619 F. Supp. 2d 1190·
M.D. Fla.·
2007-07-30
·cited 4×
The court held that the jurisdictional bar under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not preclude review of the agency's alleged unreasonable delay in adjudicating an I-485 application, as such delay may render the decision non-discretionary.
-
The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that enforcing forum selection clauses in promissory notes would lead to piecemeal litigation and inconsistent judgments, and that claims against a guarantor were not premature.
-
35 F. Supp. 2d 916·
S.D. Fla.·
1999-01-08
·cited 4×
The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate sufficient contacts between the defendant and the United States to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction over the Jones Act claim.
-
A party can be held liable under CERCLA as an 'operator' if they had authority to control the cause of contamination during disposal, and liability as a 'transporter' can extend to on-site dispersal of hazardous substances.
-
969 F.2d 241·
7th Cir.·
1992-06-30
·cited 4×
The court affirmed the district court's decisions granting summary judgment and dismissing claims related to the Wades' FOIA requests, finding no genuine issue of material fact and that the government properly invoked statutory exemptions.
-
The court held that a plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to support antitrust claims, including a properly defined relevant market, and that a company cannot monopolize or attempt to monopolize the market for its own product.
-
The court held that former employees could not bring claims against an ERISA plan's actuary for breach of fiduciary duty or knowing participation in a breach, but reversed the dismissal of their state law professional malpractice claim, finding the statute of limitations issue pr
-
The court held that the district court erred in granting a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal because the plaintiffs' complaint did not, on its face, establish that their claims were barred by the D'Oench, Duhme doctrine or 12 U.S.C. § 1823(e).
-
The court held that Arcade Water District stated a claim for a continuing nuisance, which is not time-barred under the FTCA statute of limitations.
-
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint and that the case should be remanded for further proceedings consistent with supervening authority.
-
The court held that claims alleging direct violations of the Clean Air Act's statutory provisions, rather than violations of an existing emission standard or limitation within an approved plan, must be brought as petitions for review in the courts of appeals under § 7607, not as
-
The court held that the district court erred by converting a motion to dismiss into a summary judgment motion without providing the parties an opportunity to respond, and by improperly applying Arkansas' assumption of risk doctrine as a complete bar to recovery.
-
-
The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that no implied private right of action exists under the CTRA or 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) for an employee discharged for cooperating with a federal investigation.
-
The court held that venue was proper in Kansas for defendants located in Missouri, and that the complaint sufficiently alleged claims for conspiracy to restrain trade and conspiracy to monopolize under the Sherman Act.
-
The court held that section 6(C) places an impermissible burden on a voter's First Amendment right to support a qualified candidate of her choice.
-
The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of all counts, finding no justiciable controversy for declaratory relief, no actionable claim for accounting, and no actionable claims for fraudulent inducement, promissory estoppel, or negligent misrepresentation under Indiana la
-
A lost volume seller can recover lost profits under UCC § 2-708(2), and the 'due credit' language does not preclude this. The tort of intentional interference with contractual relations requires more than knowledge that a breach is substantially certain.
-
Plaintiffs stated a claim under SEC Rule 10b-5 by alleging that the partnership formed to invest was itself a sham and part of a scheme to defraud, coupled with material misrepresentations and omissions regarding the investment.
-
The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the inmate failed to state a claim for due process or equal protection violations regarding his parole decision.
-
The court held that a lender's inclusion of a reaffirmed debt in the amount financed, rather than the finance charge, does not violate the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) when the reaffirmed debt is treated as a refinancing.
-
Allegations of 'shifting' interstate commerce are sufficient to satisfy the Sherman Act's jurisdictional requirement and withstand dismissal under both Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6).
-
The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to allege fraud with sufficient particularity to survive a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b) and 12(b)(6).
-
The court held that Leventhal's third-party complaint was properly dismissed because the alleged liability of the third-party defendants was not dependent on or related to the main claim against Leventhal.
-
654 F.2d 473·
7th Cir.·
1981-07-16
·cited 4×
The court held that the complaint adequately stated a claim for access to union records under 29 U.S.C. § 431(c), and that disputed material facts precluded dismissal or summary judgment. The court affirmed the denial of the motion to disqualify counsel.
-
A person who moves from property before the acquiring agency obtains title or the right to possession, or issues a written order to vacate, is not a "displaced person" eligible for relocation benefits under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies